4.6 Article

Nuclear reaction uncertainties, massive gravitino decays and the cosmological lithium problem

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2010/10/032

关键词

dark matter theory; big bang nucleosynthesis; supersymmetry and cosmology

资金

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation [PHY-01-10253, PHY-02-016783, PHY-08-22648]
  2. DOE at the University of Minnesota [DE-FG02-94ER-40823]
  3. Marie Curie International Reintegration grant OSUSYDM-PHENO [MIRG-CT-2007-203189]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We consider the effects of uncertainties in nuclear reaction rates on the cosmological constraints on the decays of unstable particles during or after Big-Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN). We identify the nuclear reactions due to non-thermal hadrons that are the most important in perturbing standard BBN, then quantify the uncertainties in these reactions and in the resulting light-element abundances. These results also indicate the key nuclear processes for which improved cross section data would allow different light-element abundances to be determined more accurately, thereby making possible more precise probes of BBN and evaluations of the cosmological constraints on unstable particles. Applying this analysis to models with unstable gravitinos decaying into neutralinos, we calculate the likelihood function for the light-element abundances measured currently, taking into account the current experimental errors in the determinations of the relevant nuclear reaction rates. We find a region of the gravitino mass and abundance in which the abundances of deuterium, He-4 and Li-7 may be fit with chi(2) = 5.5, compared with chi(2) = 31.7 if the effects of gravitino decays are unimportant. The best-fit solution is improved to chi(2) similar to 2.0 when the lithium abundance is taken from globular cluster data. Some such re-evaluation of the observed light-element abundances and/or nuclear reaction rates would be needed if this region of gravitino parameters is to provide a complete solution to the cosmological Li-7 problem.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据